Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 26

[Isabella]

I'm well aware Jane Tanner gave an interview but she didn't discuss her statement due to Portuguese secrecy laws. At no time did she contradict anything in her statement.

The Express admitted they were GUILTY Arabella.
Check out the amount they had to pay the McCanns - it was a LOT more than you obviously think.
And I keep calling Amaral a disgraced ex-cop because thats exactly what he is.

The woman in Morroco may well have come from Leicester. Either way she was trying to help.

And who knows what the disgraced ex-cop Amaral gets up to, after all he is on trial on criminal charges.
I believe he's also been accused of wife beating.

Though I don't like it "as I have said many times" baby listening is not illegal as i'm sure you are well aware - being in the UK.
The McCanns made what turned out to be a tragic error of judgement IMO.

And I would like Madeleine found - and the truth to come out for Madeleine and her family.

Jane Tanner did change her description of the "abductor". Im sorry if you didnt see if but..she DID. Maybe you just missed it for all i know but the description she gave DID change over some weeks. Maybe you didnt read the articles I have no idea.

Secondly my name is Isabella not Aarabella. Yes i know what they was paid. And compared with other stories that amount IS relatively low for our media. Sorry if you disagree but it is what it is. Likewise..the payment for the friends...like 50k each was peanuts. Yes a statement was issued saying sorry. However..the editor also said before the statement was issued that it was cheaper to settle out of court.Not just that it was also said they said they was making the "poor parents suffer more" by dragging them through the courts. The barristers etc would by far have cost more than the money the McCanns were paid so from there point it made business sense and most people understand this. Most people here understand the McCanns were trying to make money and shut our press up.

Regarding your allegations of Amaral being a wife beater? Do you have any proof of that? Because to accuse someone of that is pretty bad with no proof. His wife was very supportive of him and was upset with what her family was put through because of the McCanns. Again i understand this. Her husband was simply doing a job he had done for many years..and was well respected and known for being a hard worker. But his reputation..along with the FSS..the dogs...Leicestershire Police..our media. our prime minister and everyone elses for that matter went down the drain because of this couple and there friends. You stated that he made money from the book..well..so did a lot of other people make money..and because of the events in Portugal he lost his job and was ridiculed to make the McCanns look better so i dont blame him for doing the book. He had a family to support, and unlike the McCanns he takes care of his family.

However much you want to trash Amaral and call him the disgraced cop the simple FACT of the matter is - its not Amarals fault that Madeleine went missing that night. It was her PARENTS fault. Even knowing that she had cried for hours the night previously while they had been out drinking and had been told by the resort manager not to leave them alone again..the very next night they went out AGAIN leaving these kids alone. And I have no idea what your trying to imply..that saying im British i would k now its not illegal to have baby listening? Er the simple fact is....its not considered acceptable to go out for the evening..several nights running to go DRINKING and leave your children on there own for hours. Its called NEGLECT. And..either as a result of something they did or an accident whilst they was out ..OR her being kidnapped...it could only happen by THEIR actions. Had they in this country, gone out several nights running and left there babies on there own they probably would have ben removed fr om there care.

As for wanting the truth to come out for her family - i have no doubt whatsoever that her family know what the truth is already.:furious:

MOO

 

[Texana]

We call Maddie a "baby" but in truth she was almost four years old. You might justify baby listening when you have an actual baby who can't get out of a crib, but with two year olds and a four year old who can get up and get into trouble, it is simply unthinkable. Many things that are legal (especially in foreign countries) are not defensible. I'm pretty sure my teenager can drink margararitas til she passes out in Cancun, but that doesn't mean I okay it as a parent.

But let's go with the baby listening argument as legal. Let's say the McCanns felt they truly were doing exactly the same thing, and doing an even better job as parents then as paid resort employees.

So, knowing that the baby listening process allowed their child to be abducted--knowing that there was at least one vile kidnapper that would take a beautiful child from her parents and family--why would the McCanns not speak out against the practice now? Why have not they spent at least a minimum bit of their considerable public appearances and "voice" to say that the practice should be banned?

After all, there could be copy cat kidnappers out there. And, if their story is true, at least ONE uncaught kidnapper who could try this again.

Every day I read articles about parents who are speaking out against accepted practices because they resulted in the death of their children. A common one in the States has been death from alcoholic poisoning at fraternity initiations. What do the parents say? That basically while everyone thinks this is a safe, accepted, traditional practice that it is not worth the death of their son or anyone else's. I could go on and on with examples.

I find the fact that the McCanns did not speak out against the babylistening practice to be like the dog barking in the night. It is not that the dog barked; it's that the dog didn't bark at all.

 

[Isabella]

We call Maddie a "baby" but in truth she was almost four years old. You might justify baby listening when you have an actual baby who can't get out of a crib, but with two year olds and a four year old who can get up and get into trouble, it is simply unthinkable. Many things that are legal (especially in foreign countries) are not defensible. I'm pretty sure my teenager can drink margararitas til she passes out in Cancun, but that doesn't mean I okay it as a parent.

But let's go with the baby listening argument as legal. Let's say the McCanns felt they truly were doing exactly the same thing, and doing an even better job as parents then as paid resort employees.

So, knowing that the baby listening process allowed their child to be abducted--knowing that there was at least one vile kidnapper that would take a beautiful child from her parents and family--why would the McCanns not speak out against the practice now? Why have not they spent at least a minimum bit of their considerable public appearances and "voice" to say that the practice should be banned?

After all, there could be copy cat kidnappers out there. And, if their story is true, at least ONE uncaught kidnapper who could try this again.

Every day I read articles about parents who are speaking out against accepted practices because they resulted in the death of their children. A common one in the States has been death from alcoholic poisoning at fraternity initiations. What do the parents say? That basically while everyone thinks this is a safe, accepted, traditional practice that it is not worth the death of their son or anyone else's. I could go on and on with examples.

I find the fact that the McCanns did not speak out against the babylistening practice to be like the dog barking in the night. It is not that the dog barked; it's that the dog didn't bark at all.

I didnt think there was a baby listening service at that resort because it was so spread out? And the fact that Madeleine was crying for hours the other night shows they couldnt hear what there children were doing - either they that or they didnt care because they was drinking. The dumb thing is - and this is what i find so dumb...there was a evening creche there they could have used til 11 pm i think it was and they turned this down. There was also a service where the resort would pay for a local to come to your apartment and look after the children while you went out. Again they turned this down also as they thought there " way of nannying was better because they didnt know the locals". And yet did the McCanns care when these same locals were looking after there children already 5-7 hours per day? Why even take the children on holiday as they obviously didnt want the children with them

Was it because the McCanns were too tight to pay for the creche or babysitting services that they left the children on there own? Was it maybe because they wanted to come in later than 11 ( when the creche closed)? Of course they could do as normal families would have done and actually taken the kids out with them for the evening as the kids are welcomed in the bars there. Last year whilst on holiday in France..i couldnt help looking at the little kids dancing enjoying themselves and thinking how much Madeleine and the twins would have loved to have done that instead of being left alone in the bedroom while the parents went out ;(

Either way..they had alternatives and chose not to use them so that they could go out drinking. And because of that Madeleine is either dead or with Paedophiles etc.

Sorry but thats not a mistake in judgement. Its just downright being irresponsible and putting your kids at risk. MOO

 

[Isabella]

Tex i have a question for you

I am sure like most people you see the video of Eddie and Keeler when they went over Portugal. This video was splashed all over our media and after watching this many people who had thought the McCanns were innocent in fact changed there mind because of it.

Why do you think that someone was willing to risk the reputation of the dogs, FSS, and other parties in this affair?

 

[Barnaby]

Isabella, I haven't been here in a while but reading your posts we are both singing from the same hymn sheet. Your posts & points are excellent!

 

[Texana]

Tex i have a question for you

I am sure like most people you see the video of Eddie and Keeler when they went over Portugal. This video was splashed all over our media and after watching this many people who had thought the McCanns were innocent in fact changed there mind because of it.

Why do you think that someone was willing to risk the reputation of the dogs, FSS, and other parties in this affair?

The dogs have a better reputation than the McCanns'.

Honestly, the evidence of the dogs' alerting is the most incriminating evidence against the McCanns'. Anyone who has not read that in detail, needs to do so immediately. The locations where the dogs alerted and the nature of each dog's training--a logical person cannot see that in any way other than very, very damaging for the McCanns and very sad for Madeleine.

You have to ask yourself; would you believe the actions of trained animals with superior abilities to detect odors, or human beings who left their children alone knowingly while they went out to drink and eat with friends; and who have good reason to lie? Which set of living beings has the reason to lie?

The dogs neither know nor care anything than they sense the odor of death.

 

[scandi]

No offence but i disagree with everything you have put.


No offence but..you think every one lies except the McCanns. Which is laughable.

Firstly Clarence Mitchell leaked lies..they tried to make the Portugese police look as stupid as they could. No wonder the Pjs got mad..if it was even indeed the Pjs even leaking it..which i seriously wonder about sometimes

The Express were not found guilty of printing lies. They settled out of court because it was cheaper. The press complaints committee recently wanted to know why they went for money and not trying to get the truth put in the papers..go and figure..

It is not rumour about the woman at the Moroccan petrol station coming from Leicester. It is not rumour about JM being harassed by Metado. And you didnt know about Martin Smith saying the guy he saw looked like Gerry? what a surprise.

Yes Jane Tanners story DID change. To start with she was telling our papers she saw a guy carrying something in a blanket that COULD have been a child. Weeks later she said it was definetly a little girl with pyjamas on that resembled Madeleines. Now whether it was in the report i dont know but she told our papers that and thats a fact. As for Wilson..yes he and Gerry said that they did not see Tanner where she alleges she was.

As for Amaral..you may think hes a disgraced cop. However..most of Portugal appear to be rather proud of him. I dont think hes a disgraced cop at all. In reality the only people who think that are people who think the McCanns are innocent. The people who are

scared of the truth coming out.

Martin Smith said .. he was going home between 9.50 and 11 pm...and that he saw the guy carrying the child. He said this guy looked like Gerry. Amaral was going to have him called over..and then lost his job. Then Smiths story changed after the visit from Metado so go and figure.

And again - ive never seen any indication of the McCanns trying to find there daughter. Ive seen indication of them trying to get money..and plenty of it but ..

Btw why do you put so much stock in the report..if you dont trust the pjs? Most of the pjs were very supportive of Amaral in fact.

And no its not telling that people like the Payne support them. Not at all. They had every reason to support the McCanns. There own livelihoods were at risk cos of it.

MOO

Great post Isabella and thanks for reminding us of the tragedy that has happened right in front of our eyes.

I don't know what is happening in the case now. I took a little break because the stalemate of Injustice was tagging me at my heels. But I do know one thing.

Madeleine did not deserve what befell her. And NO ONE in the T10, yes I believe 10, did anything out of their way to search for her. They were the cowardly group who stayed mostly in their rooms and waited it out, followed the news and did what they had to do to stay ahead of the investigators on the job. If it had not been for the first piece of SOL investigative journalism in the case that gave us the names of the players we would have waited much longer to even start to put the truth together.

It is the testament to the life of one little girl who speaks for all other children who have been so outrageously neglected and forgotton to someone else's gain.

I was reminded of that tonight when I listened to Spudgun's still amazing video, after all this time. 'The Real Madeleine McCann Story'. Thanks again Spudgun for going out on a limb to tell it like it happened.

His video always gives me pause and grounds me in the case again. God Bless little Madeleine wherever she is tonight.

Scandi



http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=ZRvgK6M2_7Q

 

[april4sky]

Jane Tanner did change her description of the "abductor". Im sorry if you didnt see if but..she DID. Maybe you just missed it for all i know but the description she gave DID change over some weeks. Maybe you didnt read the articles I have no idea.

Sorry Isabella but I don't believe she did. She couldn't discuss her evidence due to Portuguese secrecy laws. Which brings us back to the PJ and press!!
Perhaps you can provide links?

Secondly my name is Isabella not Aarabella. Yes i know what they was paid. And compared with other stories that amount IS relatively low for our media. Sorry if you disagree but it is what it is. Likewise..the payment for the friends...like 50k each was peanuts. Yes a statement was issued saying sorry. However..the editor also said before the statement was issued that it was cheaper to settle out of court.Not just that it was also said they said they was making the "poor parents suffer more" by dragging them through the courts. The barristers etc would by far have cost more than the money the McCanns were paid so from there point it made business sense and most people understand this. Most people here understand the McCanns were trying to make money and shut our press up.

Sorry "Isabella"
You said the press were not found guilty - No matter how you choose to spin it we both know they admitted their guilt.
It cost them dearly too - and no not peanuts!
And it's unpresidented to get an apology on the front page of one newspaper - let alone four.

Because to accuse someone of that is pretty bad with no proof.

Absolutely agree with you!!
To accuse anyone of anything is bad without proof - And this applies to the McCanns too.

And if you read my post again Isabella you will see I did not "accuse" Amaral.
I wonder why you chose to ignore my other comment about Amaral - the fact that the disgraced ex-cop is on trial on criminal charges.

Er the simple fact is....its not considered acceptable to go out for the evening..several nights running to go DRINKING and leave your children on there own for hours. Its called NEGLECT.

From the report....Prosecuter Mr Magalhaes explains his decision.......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...irst-time.html

In their 58 page report, prosecutors Jose de Magalhaes and Joao Melchior Gomes said:

Mr Magalhaes defended the McCanns' decision to leave their children alone in the apartment on the night Madeleine vanished.

There was speculation that the couple may be charged with "abandonment", which can incur a prison sentence of up to 10 years.

But he said Mr and Mrs McCann had not thought their children were in any danger when they left Madeleine and her younger twin siblings.

"It is obvious that neither of the defendants, Gerald or Kate, acted with intent," he wrote.

"They could not predict that the resort where they had chosen to spend a few days holiday would leave the lives of any of their children in danger.
"It was located in a quiet place, where the majority of residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of crime.

"It seems obvious to us that the crimes of exposure or abandonment can be
eliminated.
****************

Isabella why don't you believe the final report? You seem to have faith in Amaral and the PJ!!

 

[Isabella]

Sorry Isabella but I don't believe she did. She couldn't discuss her evidence due to Portuguese secrecy laws. Which brings us back to the PJ and press!!
Perhaps you can provide links?

Sorry "Isabella" But you said the press were found innocent - And that was completely wrong.
It cost them dearly too, and not just peanuts - but Millions!
Their reputations were also damaged. And it is unpresidented to get an apology on the front page of a newspaper.
Absolutely!! Which applies to the McCanns too.

And if you read my post again Isabella you will see I did not "accuse" Amaral.

From the report....Prosecuter Mr Magalhaes explains his decision.......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...irst-time.html

In their 58 page report, prosecutors Jose de Magalhaes and Joao Melchior Gomes said:

Mr Magalhaes defended the McCanns' decision to leave their children alone in the apartment on the night Madeleine vanished.

There was speculation that the couple may be charged with "abandonment", which can incur a prison sentence of up to 10 years.

But he said Mr and Mrs McCann had not thought their children were in any danger when they left Madeleine and her younger twin siblings.

"It is obvious that neither of the defendants, Gerald or Kate, acted with intent," he wrote.

"They could not predict that the resort where they had chosen to spend a few days holiday would leave the lives of any of their children in danger.
"It was located in a quiet place, where the majority of residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of crime.

"It seems obvious to us that the crimes of exposure or

abandonment can be
eliminated.

How do you figure it cost them millions? They got more out of it than they lost because of the increased sales. So many people were buying the paper that wouldnt normally buy it. There reputations were NOT damaged in any shape or form. And im British and i know that for a fact. People dont think less of the paper - they think less of the McCanns for trying to stop everything getting out they can.

Again..about Tanner - you really must be the only person in the world who thinks she didnt change her story. Maybe you didnt read the interview i dont know. Maybe you just so want to stick up for these child neglectors i dont know. But its 100% fact she changed her description of the "egg man". In her interview..shortly after return from Portugal she said she was eaten up by guilt..cos she thought she had seen this guy - she claims she saw a guy..holding something covered by a blanket that MAY have been a child. The description she gave of this guy was that he looked like a egg kinda. Indeed many sites called him the Egg man based on her description. A few weeks later this story changed to yes this guy was definetly carrying a child and wearing pjs that resembled Madeleines which was funny cos to start with she wasnt either sure it was a child. The supposed abductor also morphed into a Portugese looking guy with beige trousers.

I guess its funny how her mind remembers all these things...and how she saw the colour of the pjs..when it was so dark. And regarding your explantion of how Gerry and Wilkins could have not seen JT..someone else claimed that she wasnt there either who was along that path. And again..the waiters claimed she didnt leave the restaurant.

And regarding them leaving the kids on there own. Many Portugese were up in arms about this saying had it been them they would have been fined for leaving there kids. Sorry but whatever way you look at it - most parents would never leave there children in a room on there own for hours..while they went out drinking when there child sleptwalk and there was pools etc outside. I simply dont get how anyone can defend them doing that. Not only that..they knew one of the children had spent hours crying for them another n ight..so how can anyone say they thought there would be no problems AFTER the resort manager had told them NOT to leave there children alone.

 

[Texana]

I
Either way..they had alternatives and chose not to use them so that they could go out drinking. And because of that Madeleine is either dead or with Paedophiles etc.

Sorry but thats not a mistake in judgement. Its just downright being irresponsible and putting your kids at risk. MOO

Exactly. They said they didn't want the children in the care of "strangers" but the evening creche and the evening babysitters were the same staff members that watched the children during the day.

I've always thought they just wanted the children to be asleep when they finished up their recreation. They did not want to mess with having the children wake up after taking them from the evening creche or any issues with having a sitter call them, etc, because the children were crying.

And of course Jane Tanner's story changed. That's why there was no public release of a definite face and features for months. She remembered more supposedly with the aid of a "hypnotherapist."

 

[april4sky]

Isabella I notice, like some other McCann haters you have selected amnesia and ignore any part of a post you don’t wish to deal with.

You make a lot of wild and wrong accusations without any confirmation. :waitasec:

This statement you made earlier would be a credit to you if you actually meant it - and followed it yourself …..

Because to accuse someone of that is pretty bad with no proof.

And NO there is no proof Isabella - Check out the Final report.

Don't work too hard on a reply because I won't be responding. It's obvious you don't answer questions you either can't or don't like.

 

[Isabella]

Isabella I notice, like some other McCann haters you have selected amnesia and ignore any part of a post you don’t wish to deal with.

You make a lot of wild and wrong accusations without any confirmation. :waitasec:

This statement you made earlier would be a credit to you if you actually meant it - and followed it yourself …..
And NO there is no proof Isabella - Check out the Final report.

Don't work too hard on a reply because I won't be responding. It's obvious you don't answer questions you either can't or don't like.

Excuse me? Your the one who accused Mr Amaral of beating his wife with absolutely no foundation whatsoever. A man your against because he wanted the truth about what happened to Madeleine and suspected along with so many others that the parents were inbvolved.

I am not a McCann hater. I do not like people such as the parents who neglect there children so they can have a good time. For the life of me i dont get why someone would go through IVF and then treat there children the way the McCanns did. I dont understand how any one could condone there behaviour.

I can answer any question. Thats not a problem. What I DO find impossible..is when people argue about facts that were well documented at the beginning of this case and deny they happened because IMO it suits there agenda to ignore those facts MOO

 

[Isabella]

Great post Isabella and thanks for reminding us of the tragedy that has happened right in front of our eyes.

I don't know what is happening in the case now. I took a little break because the stalemate of Injustice was tagging me at my heels. But I do know one thing.

Madeleine did not deserve what befell her. And NO ONE in the T10, yes I believe 10, did anything out of their way to search for her. They were the cowardly group who stayed mostly in their rooms and waited it out, followed the news and did what they had to do to stay ahead of the investigators on the job. If it had not been for the first piece of SOL investigative journalism in the case that gave us the names of the players we would have waited much longer to even start to put the truth together.

It is the testament to the life of one little girl who speaks for all other children who have been so outrageously neglected and forgotton to someone else's gain.

I was reminded of that tonight when I listened to Spudgun's still amazing video, after all this time. 'The Real Madeleine McCann Story'. Thanks again Spudgun for going out on a limb to tell it like it happened.

His video always gives me pause and grounds me in the case again. God Bless little Madeleine wherever she is tonight.

Scandi



http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=ZRvgK6M2_7Q

Hey there

I will be honest and admit i used to be a big supporter of the McCanns - and then i saw that video a year ago now by Spudgun - and that videa made me see things in a different light. Its so compelling and really makes you think.

You said about the T10. Who do you think the 10th person could be? I guess you have read the rumours about the McCanns and there friends? I know a lot think it could have been someone for DW but i dont know. It wouldnt entirely surprise me if someone fr om our government was there and thats what all the protecting was actually about. MOO

 

[Isabella]

I suppose one question I have - i keep seeing the question "Have you read the report?". How many of you believe the report in its entirety and how many think it was adapted to get the McCanns off of any potential charges?

 

[scandi]

Isabella I notice, like some other McCann haters you have selected amnesia and ignore any part of a post you don’t wish to deal with.

You make a lot of wild and wrong accusations without any confirmation. :waitasec:

This statement you made earlier would be a credit to you if you actually meant it - and followed it yourself …..
And NO there is no proof Isabella - Check out the Final report.

Don't work too hard on a reply because I won't be responding. It's obvious you don't answer questions you either can't or don't like.

Hi April, You know there was pertinent info left out of the Final Report on purpose.

 

[Texana]

Hi April, You know there was pertinent info left out of the Final Report on purpose.

Indeed.

And to label anyone as "McCann hater..." I don't think that finding the McCanns in some way culpable for what happened to their child (either accidental death or abduction) qualifies anyone as "hater." It is what it is.

The McCanns used singularly poor judgment for people who should have had better judgment, by their education, than anyone else. As doctors, they would have had training in accidental injuries to children. I am sure that the doctors in Great Britain go through a round of emergency room duty as part of their training same as any other first world country. I knew someone who had a master's in nursing and was the manager of a hospital emergency room and I will never forget that she told me she would never have a swimming pool, balloons, or a trampoline at her home--just based on the injuries she saw. I am sure the McCanns in their training as physicians saw more than one example of what can happen to a child left unsupervised.

It is not hating anyone to find it incredulous that the McCanns chose to leave their very young children unsupervised. Whatever scenario you believe, it ended badly for Madeleine McCann.

And yet, the McCanns defend their decision to this day.

If the McCanns aren't loved and respected, that is their own fault. Natural consequences.

 

[april4sky]

Hi April, You know there was pertinent info left out of the Final Report on purpose.

Hi scandi,

Is this just another wild statement without any basis in fact?

Or maybe part of the conspiricy theories. :crazy:

Have a nice day.

 

[scandi]

Hi scandi,

Is this just another wild statement without any basis in fact?

Or maybe part of the conspiricy theories. :crazy:

Have a nice day.

April, every poster makes their own determination of the case on what they have read. That is not a wild statement but was stated from one of the persons who wrote a book on the case as I remember. I'd have to go back and research it.

Except for the last month or so I have studied this case intently from day 1. I could give you a long list of reasons why I feel there is culpability on the parents part to cover up Madeleine's death for some greater benefit.

But I see no reason to do that here. You have your mind made up they are innocent of any involvement in her disappearance and nothing that I can see will change that. That is not a bad thing and I totally respect your seeing things as you do and sticking to your guns.

BTW, did you ever see the video of the interview they gave on camera where they were distraught and so sad. And when they thought the camera was off they started laughing together as they removed their mikes, and then suddenly blip, the camera went dead? It was long into the case but a reminder of the constant two faced people they were. I read several accounts how they changed from sad to happy like that from reporters who worked the case.

Something will happen when we least expect it and I feel that with all my heart. We both want the same thing I think April, and that is Justice for Madeleine and the legal punishment for whoever is responsible for her disappearance off the face of the earth.

 

[april4sky]

April, every poster makes their own determination of the case on what they have read. That is not a wild statement but was stated from one of the persons who wrote a book on the case as I remember. I'd have to go back and research it.

Except for the last month or so I have studied this case intently from day 1. I could give you a long list of reasons why I feel there is culpability on the parents part to cover up Madeleine's death for some greater benefit.

But I see no reason to do that here. You have your mind made up they are innocent of any involvement in her disappearance and nothing that I can see will change that. That is not a bad thing and I totally respect your seeing things as you do and sticking to your guns.

BTW, did you ever see the video of the interview they gave on camera where they were distraught and so sad. And when they thought the camera was off they started laughing together as they removed their mikes, and then suddenly blip, the camera went dead? It was long into the case but a reminder of the constant two faced people they were. I read several accounts how they changed from sad to happy like that from reporters who worked the case.

Something will happen when we least expect it and I feel that with all my heart. We both want the same thing I think April, and that is Justice for Madeleine and the legal punishment for whoever is responsible for her disappearance off the face of the earth.

scandi I have also studied this case from the beginning - and have always tried to separate fact from all of the malicious fiction.

I definately wouldn't accept as truth any of the books published so far about Madeleine. They have been published for one reason only - to make money out of Madeleine for their very questionable authors. Especially disgraced ex-cop Amaral.:crazy:

And yes I saw the video - I also saw there was a break in the recording before you see them laughing.
Who knows how long the break was, what they were responding too, what had been said, even said by whom!
Without all the information it's wrong to make assumptions and attack them.

As for your last paragraph scandi - I really hope your right. :blowkiss:

 

[mysterymax]

Is she a relative of the McCann's?